What Comes First in Language Emergence? Wendy Sandler University of Haifa

Chapter 6 What comes first in language emergence? Wendy Sandler University of Haifa There has been much speculation about what came first in the evolution ofhu- man language – repetitive syllables that took on meaning (MacNeilage 1998) or that provided a structural basis for syntax (Carstairs-McCarthy 1999); words (Bickerton 1990; Jackendoff 1999); undecomposable holophrases (e.g., Arbib 2012); or musical protolanguage (Darwin 1871; Fitch 2010; see Newmeyer 2002 and Fitch 2005 for informative overviews).1 Others have argued that the defining property at the evolutionary core of the human language faculty is syntactic recursion (Hauser, Chomsky & Fitch 2002), more recently described as a computational operation combining and recombining linguistic units (Bolhuis et al. 2014), or “discrete infinity” (Hauser et al. 2014). Whatever one takes to have been fundamental, it is reasonable to assume that language must have evolved in stages, and that, in some cases, the emergence of one property must have depended on another that preceded it, in the sense that it could not have evolved without it. It is difficult to support, refute, or flesh out hypotheses about these stagesof evolution with evidence from spoken languages alone, because they are all thou- sands of years old, or descended from old languages, with their full linguistic structure intact. However, sign languages can arise anew at any time, and linguists look to them for clues to the course of language emergence. The fact that the emergence of sign languages can be observed in realtime does not guarantee that they will provide clues to the course of evolution of the human language capacity. If these young sign languages were to make their appearance replete with complex linguistic structures, they would be of little 1 Some theorists have proposed that spoken language emerged from gesture (Corballis 2002; Armstrong, Stokoe & Wilcox 1995; Arbib 2012). I do not deal with that issue here, but see also e.g., MacNeilage (1998); and Sandler (2013); Emmorey (2013); and other papers in Kemmerer (2013) for discussion. Wendy Sandler. 2017. What comes first in language emergence? In N. J. En- field (ed.), Dependencies in language, 63–84. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI:10.5281/zenodo.573788 Wendy Sandler help in determining how such structure emerged in evolution. It is only if they develop gradually, and if the stages in this process can be identified, that they might offer concrete contemporary evidence of the path of language emergence. Here I will identify such evidence in a new sign language that arose in relative isolation, to show that modest linguistic machinery – holistic words and prosodic organization of semantically related words – are the first things to emerge, and that they are enough to support fully functional language. Other, more computational, aspects of linguistic form, such as phonological, morphological,2 and syntactic structuring, are later arrivals, apparently requiring the prior scaffold- ing provided by simplex words and by prosodic constituents that temporally or- ganize semantically related units and characterize them with intonation.3 Of course, it cannot be assumed that the emergence of new sign languages in biologically modern humans faithfully replicates the evolution of language in our species. But the modernity of these languages does not nullify their significance in the context of evolution, and it would be a mistake to dismiss them. Emerg- ing sign languages offer an exciting opportunity to identify two central facets of language emergence that no other naturally occurring system can provide. One is the nature of the communicative elements that are required minimally in order for a system to function as language. The other facet, relevant for the theme of this volume, is the path along which one kind of structure follows, or is dependent on, another over time before arriving at the kind of rule governed complexity in language that we often take for granted. In this sense, new sign languages can offer a uniquely empirical and plausible reference point for models of language evolution. New sign languages have a heuristic advantage over spoken languages in another way as well. The nature of the physical system, in which movements of different parts of the body (the two hands, the head, the face, the torso) visually manifest different linguistic functions, makes it possible for linguists to match form to function more directly than they can for spoken languages, and literally to see it unfold (Sandler 2012a). I refer to this correspondence between the recruitment of articulators for linguistic purposes and language form as the Grammar of the Body. 2 Sign languages in general have certain types of modality-typical complex morphology (e.g., Aronoff, Meir & Sandler 2005). We were surprised not to have found this complexity at the morphological level in Al Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language, although the beginnings of a system can be discerned in compounds. See Meir et al. (2010) and Padden et al. (2010) for treatments of the emergence of morphology in ABSL. 3 I am assuming here that prosody includes intonation as well as rhythm (timing) and stress. 64 6 What comes first in language emergence? Investigation of Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language (ABSL), a young sign language that arose in relative isolation, has shown that a language does not spring forth fully formed, but rather evolves gradually across generations (see Aronoff et al. 2008; Sandler et al. 2014 for overviews).4 Studying this language in different age groups, and tracing the step-by-step recruitment of different articulators to create a linguistic system (Sandler 2012a), allows us to observe the gradual emergence of linguistic form over time. Our data suggest that language develops very efficiently, first, by creating holistic units to signify concepts – words with no phonology. This is followed by combining words into short propositions and later into larger discourse units, and organizing them prosodically into a fully functional linguistic system. Word order comes in early as well (Sandler et al. 2005), although we now have reason to believe that it is determined by the fundamental opposition between human and inanimate referents, and not by syntax (Meir et al. 2017). I will extrapolate from our findings on Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language to propose that certain basic elements of language must be present before other components commonly thought of as fundamental can arise. First, the crystal- lization of phonology depends on conventionalization of lexical items, which in turn depends on repeated social interactions with the same social group. These factors lead to automaticity, which results in a split between form and meaning. This split paves the way for duality of patterning (Hockett 1960) – meaningful and meaningless (phonological) levels of structure. The second two related properties are prosody and syntax. In ABSL, prosodic structure organizes semantic relations in the absence of concrete evidence for any syntactic means of marking the same relations. With little evidence for syntax in ABSL, I conclude that syntactic structure is not a prerequisite for the emergence of prosodic organization. The pattern of emergence we see suggests that central properties of language that are considered universal – phonology and autonomous syntax – do not come ready-made in the human brain, and that a good deal of language can be present without clear evidence for them. I begin with a snapshot of the Grammar of the 4 As Keren Rice pointed out to me, no criteria are offered for measuring whether language emergence is gradual or abrupt, and indeed, the characterization depends a lot on one’s expectations. Coming from the generative tradition that attributes a fair amount of linguistic structure to innate propensities, our group was surprised by the lack of much linguistic structure in the early stages of ABSL, and by the seemingly arduous path to its accrual and conventionalization, leading us us to characterize emergence of linguistic form as gradual. For an overview of our ABSL findings, see Sandler et al. 2014. 65 Wendy Sandler Body in established sign languages to show how linguistic structure manifests itself in these visual languages5, and then go on to emergence. 1 The Grammar of the Body Sign languages are sometimes described as manual languages because the hands convey words, the most essential linguistic units. But sign languages also sys- tematically exploit the whole upper body to convey language: movements of the head, facial articulators, and the torso, and independent use of the nondominant hand. Different movements of the extra-manual bodily articulators individually and in combination convey important elements of structure, including subordi- nation, adjectival- or adverbial-type modification, contrast, intonation, and more, as shown in Figure 3 below.6 The two levels to be traced here are the word and prosody/intonation. In established sign languages, words have phonological structure: different configurations of the fingers, orientations of the palm, and movements ofthe hand on or near different body locations are combined to create signs and to dis- tinguish them from one another, and they are altered in phonological processes such as assimilation (Stokoe 1960; Sandler 1989; Liddell & Johnson 1989; Brentari 1998). Figure 1 shows a minimal pair in Israeli Sign Language (ISL) distinguished by differences in major place of articulation alone. A sign in sign language roughly corresponds to a word in spoken language: it bears a conventionalized form-meaning relation and is constrained in form both phonotactically (Battison 1978; Mandel 1981) and prosodically (Sandler 1999). Signs are typically monosyllabic, characterized by a single movement of the hands from one location to another. Even morphologically complex signs are usually monosyllabic, since grammatical morphemes are nonconcatenatively (si- multaneously) overlaid on the base sign, by changes in locations, types of movement, and/or rhythm, and with particular conventionalized facial expressions (Sandler 1999).

Load more